BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
R~(RON
SANDBERG,
)
Petitioner,
)
2 ~2O0’~
CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS, THE CITY)
Case No.
PCB 04-3 3
OF KANKAKEE, ILLNOIS
CITY COUNCIL,)
TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES, INC.,
)
and
KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLiNOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Case No.
PCB 04-34
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS CITY)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY
)
UTILITIES, iNC.,
and KANKAKEE
)
REGIONAL LANDFILL, L.L.C.,
.
)
)
Respondents.
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS
and
)
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY).
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
Petitioners,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Case No.
PCB
04-3
5
CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS, THE CITY)
OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY COUNCIL,)
TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES, INC.,
)
and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.,
.
)
)
Respondents.
)
703fl2lOvl 827167
PETITIONERS’
MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT
RECORD
NOW COME Petitioners, COUNTY OF KANKAKEE and EDWARD
D.
SMITH, and
as
and for their Motion to
Supplement Record, state as follows:
1.
Waste
Management,
Illinois,
Inc.
has
previously
filed
an
application
seeking
siting
approval
for an
expansion
of
its
existing
facility located
in
Kankakee
County,
Illinois,
which is the subject of a pending siting hearing.
2.
On
January
12,
2004,
the
local
siting
hearings
began
to
determine
if
Waste
Management’s application should be approved.
3.
At
the
hearing,
George
Mueller,
who
represents
Town
&
Country
in
this
proceeding, represented one ofthe objectors, Mr. Merlin Carlock.
4.
On
January
15,
2004,
George
Mueller
called
Charles
Norris,
a
professional
geologist, to
testify.
5.
During his
testimony,
Mr. Norris
stated that he
had reviewed the testimony that
Mr.
Schuh provided in
Town & Country II on behalfofthe County ofKankakee in June of 2003.
(Waste Management, 1/15/04 Tr. Vol. IX, pp.
24,
53, 54,
63,
102-03).
6.
Based on his
review of Mr.
Schuh’s testimony, Mr. Norris agreed wholeheartedly
with Mr.
Shuh’s
testimony and
opinion that sensitivity
analyses must
be presented in
a landfill
siting application.
(Waste Management,
1/15/04 Tr. Vol. IX, pp.
38,
5 1-52, 85).
7.
In fact,
Mr. Norris repeatedly stated that Mr.
Schuh’s testimony was “absolutely
on the mark.”
(Waste Management, 1/15/04 Tr. Vol.
IX,
pp. 52,
85).
8.
Mr. Norris further elaborated on his opinion and stated:
I
agree with
Mr.
Shue
sic
not
oniy on
the issue
of sensitivity runs with
the
groundwater
impact
assessment,
but
with
the
inclusion
of
all
data,
everything
known,
I
think
it
is
inappropriate
to
the
point
of
being
unconscionable for someone at any aspect ofthese kinds ofsiting hearings
to
be asking the siting authority just to trust me, I’ve looked at the date and
its
fine.
That data, all
of that information has got
to
be out
on
the
table,
available for full review, not just after the hearings, but before the hearings
2
70392210v1 827167
where all interested parties can have the opportunity to look at them.
(Waste Management, 1/15/04 Tr.
Vol.
IX, pp.
5
1-52).
9.
Mr.
Norris’
opinions
clearly
relate
to
the
proceeding
at
issue
in
this
case
and
specifically
support
Mr.
Schuh’s
conclusion
that
T&C’s
application
did
not
contain
adequate
information to
establish
that the facility was
designed and
located to protect the public,
health,
safety and welfare.
10.
Such
testimony
is
directly
relevant
to
this
case,
particularly
since
the
witness
providing the testimony was presented by T&C’s
own attorney.
11.
Because
the
testimony
of
Mr.
Norris
would
clearly
be
helpful
to
the
decisionmakers in this
proceeding, Petitioners request that this Board supplement the record with
Mr.
Norris’
testimony
from
the
January
15,
2004
proceeding,
which
is
attached
hereto
and
incorporated herein.
WHEREFORE,
Petitioners,
COUNTY
OF
KANKAKEE
and
EDWARD
D.
SMITH,
STATE’S
ATTORNEY
OF
KANKAKEE COUNTY, request that this
Board grant their Motion
to Supplement the Record.
Dated: January 19, 2004
Respectfully submitted,
EDWARD D.
SMITH
KANKAKEE
COUNTY
STATE’S ATTORNEY AND THE COUNTY
OF
KANKAKEE
By: HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
Richard S.
orter
One of Its Attorneys
HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
815-490-4900
Printed on 100
Recycled Paper
3
7O~92210v1827167
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The
undersigned,
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of Section
1-109
of the
Illinois
Code
of
Civil
Procedure, hereby under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United
States ofAmerica,
certifies that
on
January
19, 2004,
a copy ofthe foregoing was
served upon:
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunri, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-3620
Attorney George Mueller
501
State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
(815) 433-4705
(815) 433-4913
FAX
Donald J. Moran
Pederson & Houpt
161
N.
Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 6060 1-3242
(312) 261-2149
(3 12) 261-1 149
FAX
Kenneth A.
Leshen
Leshen & Sliwinski, P.C.
One Dearborn Square, Suite
550
Kankakee, IL 60901-3927
(815) 933-3385
(815)
933-3397
FAX
Christopher W.
Bohlen
200
E.. Court Street, Suite 602
P.O. Box 1787
Kankakee,IL 60901
(815)
939-1133
(815)
939-0994FAX
L. Patrick Power
956
N. Fifth Avenue
Kankakee, IL 60901
(815) 937-6937
(815) 937-0056
FAX
Byron
Sandberg
109 Raub St.
Donovan, IL 60931
byronsandberg~starband.net
70377853v1 827167
Mr. Brad Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph,
11th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
(312)814-8917
(312) 814-3669FAX
By depositing a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope in the U.S. Mail at Rockford, Illinois, before the
hour of 5:00 P.M., addressed as above.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
100ParkAvenue
P.O.
Box
1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
(815) 490-4900
70377853v1 827167
708-709-0500
RECEIVED
CLERF4~SOFFICE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
JAN 2
1 2OO~
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE
SS.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
IN THE MATTER OF
APPLICATION BY WASTE MANAGEMENT,
ILLINOIS,
INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,)
FOR APPROVAL OF THE
SITE LOCATION FOR
AN EXPANSION OF THE KANKAKEE LANDFILL.
VOLUME IX
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had during the public
hearing before John McCarthy,
Hearing Officer,
at the
Quality Inn,
800 North Kinzie Avenue,
Bradley,
Illinois,
on the 15th day of January,
2004,
at
8:45 a.m.
ri
2
1
KANKAKEE COUNTY REGIONAL
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
2
Loretto Cowhig;
3
John Meyer,
Jr.;
Ralph Paarlberg;
4
Curt
Saindon;
Jim .Tripp;
5
George Washington,
Jr.
6
KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD
7
MEMBERS PRESENT:
8
Ann Bernard;
Ralph Marcotte,
Jr.;
9
Leonard Martin;
Ed Meents;
10
Robert Scholl;
Leo Whitten;
11
Francis Jackson;
William Olthoff.
12
PRESENT FROM THE PLAN DEPARTMENT:
13
Mr. Michael VanMill,
Planning Director;
14
Ms.
Donna Shehane,
Solid Waste Coordinator.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
U
3
1
APPEARANCES:
2
MR.
DONALD MORAN,
Appeared on behalf of Waste Management,
3
Applicant;
4
MR. RICHARD PORTER,
Appeared on behalf of the Kankakee County
5
Staff;
6
MS. ELIZABETH
S. HARVEY,
Special Assistant State’s Attorney,
7
Appeared on behalf of the Kankakee County
Regional
Planning Commission and the
8
Kankakee County Board;
9
MR. EDWARD SMITH,
Kankakee County State’s Attorney,
10
Appeared on behalf of the Kankakee County
Regional Planning Commission;
11
MR.
L.
PATRICK POWER,
~l2
Appeared on behalf of the City of Kankakee;
13
MR. GEORGE MUELLER,
Appeared on behalf of Mr. Merlin Karlock;
14
MR.
DAVID FLYNN,
15
Appeared on behalf of Mr. Michael Watson;
16
MR. KEITH RUNYON, Individually;.
17
MR.
DARREL BRUCK,
Individually;
18
19
20
21
22
C
4
1
VOLUME IX
2
.
INDEX
Cross-Examination by
Cross-Examination by
Cross-Examination by
Cross-Examination by
Cross-Examination by
Cross-Examination by
Redirect Examination
KARLOCK
A through E
Mr.
Moran
Mr.
Flynn
Mr. Runyon
Mr.
Porter
Mr.
Washington
Mr. Harrison
by Mr. Mueller
5
6
13
15
17
20
52
68
68
77
88
91
97
101
103
105
106
113
114
ADMITTED
118
PAGE
WITNESS
3
CHRISTOPHER G. RUBAK
Direct Examination by Mr.
Moran
4
Cross-Examination by Mr. Mueller
Cross—Examination by Mr. Runyon
5
Redirect Examination by Mr.
Moran
Recross-Examination by Mr. Mueller
6
CHARLES NORRIS
Direct Examination by Mr. Mueller
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LI
Recross-Examination by Mr. Moran
Recross-Examination by Mr.
Flynn
Recross-Examination by Mr. Harrison
Further Recross-Examination
(By Mr.
Moran)
Cross-Examination by Mr.
Paarlberg
Further Recross-Examination
(By Mr.
Harrison)
EXHIBITS
WATSON
B through W
HEARING OFFICER:
Let’s reconvene the public
hearing.
It’s about a quarter to 9:00 or so.
Mr.
Moran,
you may call your next witness.
MR.
MORAN:
Thank you,
Mr. Hearing Officer.
HEARING OFFICER:
Would you swear the witness,
please?
(Witness
sworn.)
HEARING OFFICER:
You may proceed.
MR.
MORAN:
Thank
you.
WHEREUPON:
134
5
CHRISTOPHER B. RUBAK,
P.E.,
11
direct testimony and his cross—examination are
12
already part of this record and do not need to be
13
repeated.
14
HEARING OFFICER:
That’s correct.
15
BY MR. MUELLER:
16
Q.
Mr.
Norris, have you had opportunity to do
17
some further review of this application?
18
A.
Yes,
I
have.
19
Q.
And have you had opportunity to do some
20
further review of the applicant’s operating record?
21
A.
Yes,
I have.
22
Q.
And have you heard the supplemental
C
22
1
testimony and cross—examination of Joan Underwood in
2
support of the application?
3
A.
Yes,
I have.
4
Q.
Based upon those things, do you have
5
anything to add to the testimony that you previously
6
gave?
7
A.
Yes,
I do have some observations.
8
Q.
If you would proceed, please?
9
A.
One of the observations that
I think needs
10
to be made and considered is the fact that this
11
application
is, with the exception of some
12
bookkeeping changes,
exactly the same application
13
that was
submitted a year ago.
At the hearings a
14
year ago,
there were
a number of problems that were
15
identified,
a number of issues that were raised that
16
the applicant has chosen to simply ignore.
17
One of those areas
is unshared information
18
by the applicant.
There are four quarters of head
19
data in the expansion area that were not included in
20
the application and have not been shared with the
21
public for review.
There are
four quarters of water
22
chemistry from the expansion area that have not been
LII
23
1
shared by the applicant with this application and
2
then made available for the public to review.
The
3
water chemistry data for all parameters have not been
4
shared with the public .for public review and
a
5
critical
look.
The applicant’s interpretation of the
6
water table map,
a critical element,
has not been
7
shared with the public or the county for its review
8
in this application.
Model runs that would test the
9
sensitivity of the calculations upon which
10
Ms.
Underwood’s faith in the public.protection of the
11
public health,
safety and welfare have -not been
12
included in this application and made available for
13
public review.
14
This kind of information would offer
a
15
significant
improvement,
a significant
advance in the
16
ability to interpret what is actually going on,
what
17
the conditions
are under the expansion area and allow
18
a meaningful comparison of the expansion area to the
19
existing area where there
are these kinds of data.
20
The performance of the existing landfill is
21
still looked at in basically the same presentation
——
22
not basically
-—
exactly the same presentation that
U
24
1
it was a year ago in spite of the fact that there
2
have been actions taken by the State IEPA on some of
3
the elements in Table
2-3.
And in fact,
there’s been
4
a remedial plan that has been caused to be put into
5
effect relative to contamination from the existing
6
site.
7
Q.
Let me interrupt you for a second, Chuck.
8
Have you had an opportunity to review the
9
testimony of Jeffrey Shue,
the County’s consultant
10
from Patrick Engineering,
at the Town and Country
11
hearings?
12
MR.
PORTER:
Objection,
irrelevant.
13
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Mueller?
14
MR.
MUELLER:
I’m just asking if he reviewed
it.
15
We’ll
find out if it’s relevant when he opines on it.
16
HEARING OFFICER:
Overruled.
17
BY THE WITNESS:
18
A.
Yes,
I have had
a chance to read that
19
testimony.
20
Q.
And specifically,
have you had an
21
opportunity
to review the portions
of. his testimony
22
that identified shortcomings by way of not including
C
25
1
certain information in that application?
2
A.
Yes,
I do recall those parts of his
3
testimony.
4
MR.
PORTER:
Same objection.
5
HEARING OFFICER:
Same ruling.
6
BY MR.
MUELLER:
7
Q.
Mr.
Norris,
for example,
Mr.
Shue,
I
8
believe,
opined that the absence of sensitivity
9
analyses with the application,
in his opinion,
10
rendered the application so incomplete as to make it
11
impossible to render
a judgment on Criterion
2.
Do
12
you recall reading that?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And with regard to your comments about what
15
is not
included in this refiled application,
I’d ask
16
you to keep Mr.
Shue’s comments in mind and tell me
17
whether you agree with the position that the County
18
has previously expressed in regard to things
like the
19
necessity of sensitivity analyses.
20
With that,
please proceed.
21
A.
In considering the information that is
22
provided in the application in Table
2—3,
I would
C
26
1
encourage the County to note the careful use of
2
language in the rationalization or explaining away
3
the deterioration of groundwater quality around the
4
old landfill.
Statements like,
quote,
nbt confirmed
5
increases when compared to
final AGQS’s, end of
6
quote.
7
One of the things that is observable
in the
8
review of the operating record when it is looked at
9
carefully is the change in the water quality
10
standards or the applicable groundwater quality
11
standards that the operator was able to get approved
12
by the State that made
a lot of these increases
13
disappear,
if you will;
not that the water quality
14
didn’t change,
not that the water quality didn’t
15
deteriorate with time,
but only that it now doesn’t
16
count in terms of not meeting that standard.
17
Geologically
--
hydrogeologically,
this was
18
in large part accomplished by the assertion that
19
there was atypical channelized flow in the bedrock at
20
this site; and,
therefore,
the normal approach of
21
using up-gradient wells as
a comparison
for water
22
quality was done away with,
and instead,
individual
U
27
1
wells were just compared to themselves.
And then a
2
different time frame was taken,
a time frame after
3
the deterioration started,
to redefine what normal
4
is.
This
is attributed and dismissed as being
a
5
natural variation.
6
When you’re looking at this statement in
7
these documents or in this table of when compared to
8
final AGQS,
that’s a ~ed
flag for you.
That’s we
9
changed the playing field and now it’s no longer an
10
increase.
11
Another recurring theme that’.s used to
12
explain away or rationalize is the suggestion that at
13
some point in time,
the purging and sampling method
14
no longer was
adequate and that the changes are due
15
to a faulty purging and sampling method or a faulty
16
laboratory method that was fine for
a number of years
17
but somehow has suddenly become inadequate and so we
18
need to rechange the standard or find a different way
19
of monitoring or analyzing so that we no longer have
20
a problem.
21
The statement not attributable to landfill,
22
or more specifically,
as used in the text,
not due to
C
28
1
leachate release from the facility
——
A place where
2
that language is used is on page 225
-—
there’s an
3
important difference between not attributable to the
4
landfill and not attributable to
a leachate
release.
5
Discharges
from that existing facility have
6
contaminated groundwater around the existing
7
facility.
And that
is just
a simple statement.
8
Okay?
9
Somewhat more detail can be offered in
10
Karlock
15,
the second page of that document,
from
11
the previous record.
Dismissing the groundwater
12
contamination as being caused by a gas release as
13
opposed to a leachate release and that that in some
14
way suggests that that groundwater contamination
15
shouldn’t count just simply doesn’t fly.
It doesn’t
16
negate the
fact that the existing facility caused
17
that damage.
It doesn’t actually fit the data
18
itself.
19
The data itself suggests that at least some
20
of those constituents could not have been caused by
a
21
gas release,
the
concentrations that are observed.
22
And ultimately,
it apparently hasn’t flown with the
C
29
1
IEPA in that they have instituted
a remedial action
2
and that the applicant is having to do some
3
remediation.
Now, unfortunately,
I haven’t been able
4
to review that document.
It isn’t in the
operating
5
record at the County Clerk’s office, but
I was glad
6
to see that in this case,
the Illinois Environmental
7
Protection Agency did not accept the premise that gas
8
contamination of groundwater, were that the cause,
9
doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem.
10
Second, this approach of it’s not caused by
11
a leachate release doesn’t assess responsibility for
12
non—leachate impacts that are caused by the landfill
13
on the hydrogeology,
either physical or chemical.
14
Unaddressed are the inconsistencies
in the
15
geologic interpretations
in the application.
The
16
most
—-
One of these inconsistencies
is the concept
17
that the thin sands in the unconsolidated sediments
18
are interpreted by the applicant as being too limited
19
in extent to be pathways of migration.
That’s most
20
obviously refuted by the existing facility, where we
21
at least have some data to work with,
and by the sand
22
stringer there that has had to be targeted and
C
30
1
drilled to be
——
to allow the gas to dissipate to the
2
atmosphere.
That sand is extensive enough that this
3
is causing migration of gas away from the existing
4
facility.
It is extensive enough that it can be
5
mapped and has been mapped and has been deliberately
6
drilled to deal with the problem of the migrating
7
gas.
8
In looking at and reviewing,
again,
the
9
operating record, and the painstaking review of that
10
record,
shows that there has never been
a suggestion
11
at any time that this
gas is anything but landfill
12
gas.
All of the engineering reports,
all of the
13
geologic reports in dealing with it and installing
14
the wells to dissipate the gas to the surface have
15
universally described this as being gas migrating
16
from the
landfill.
Only in these hearings
in the
17
testimony of Mr.
Johnson has there been ever any
18
suggestion that there might be some other
19
non-landfill cause
for this gas.
20
I would urge you to go with what the record
21
shows and what everyone who has worked on that site
22
and recognized
that
a sand stringer at the existing
C
31
1
facility has,
in
fact,
transported gas outside the
2
boundaries
of the facility and that the geology
3
around the expansion area is sufficiently similar
4
that the same can happen there,
and that possibility
5
must be dealt with in the design and operation of the
6
new facility.
7
We still have an insistence that the
8j
glacial sediments are
an effective barrier to
9
vertical migration.
The gas in that stringer at the
10
existing facility could not have gotten there
if the
11
glacial sediments are as represented in this
12
application.
Modern agricultural chemicals and
13
bomb—generated radionuclides would not be in the
14
bedrock.
15
Water,
if the fine grain sediments
16
performed hydrologically the way they are represented
17
as performing in the application,
the interpretation
18
is not consistent with either the site data or the
19
regional data.
The site data suggests that water
20
moves through at least
50 times or more faster and at
21
higher volumes.
The regional data says it could be
22
as much as
170 times greater.
These were issues that
C
32
1
were raised in the previous hearings that were
2
unaddressed
arid are
still unaddressed.
3
The channelized flow under the existing
4
facility has been explicitly acknowledged by the
5
applicant’s consultants and used,
in particular,
to
6
change the methodologies
for calculating the
7
standards and allowing them to be revised upward.
8
The proposed monitoring system monitors
9
only the upper
15 feet of the bedrock in spite of
10
well bore and stratigraphic evidence that dissolution
11
features exist at greater depth and that there is
a
12
gradient downward toward such features.
Monitoring
13
the upper
15 feet and ignoring that downward gradient
14
ends up being a situation where most of the water
15
that is traveling through and leaving the upper
15
16
feet is not being monitored.
17
I’ve put together a diagram to illustrate
18
that point.
19
George, did you want to
-—
20
Q.
Chuck,
these have been handed out,
and the
21
diagram is Karlock Exhibit
D,
as in David,
and your
22
calculations
is Karlock Exhibit
E.
C
33
1
A.
All right.
2
Karlock D shows
a schematic of the
15 feet
3
that is considered the upper part of the bedrock
4
aquifer.
It is the part that’s going to be
5
monitored.
Okay?
Essentially,
the monitoring
will
6
occur around the north,
south and east sides.
And if
7
you look at the area that is involved in that
8
perimeter around the north,
east and south sides,
and
9
a thickness of
15 feet,
that area is about 3.4 acres
10
that water can move through.
We know the gradient
in
11
there.
We know the hydraulic conductivity.
So we
12
can calculate the volume of water that moves through
13
that perimeter area.
14
We have a downward gradient,
which means
15
water moves down out of that zone that is being
——
16
that is being monitored.
The same calculation can be
17
made for that.
The volume
--
18
Q.
Can
I
interrupt you for a minute?
Just
for
19
people who are looking at the exhibit,
does the
20
rectangular box on Exhibit
D, with dimensions 5,000
21
feet by 2,500
feet,
represent the top of the dolomite
22
aquifer underneath the site?
C
34
1
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
And do the sides of that box, with a
3
dimension of 15 feet in height,
represent the
4
perimeter of that area,
which is the
zone being
5
monitored?
6
A.
Yes.
That’s the depth of the monitoring
7
wells that are proposed in this application at
8
present.
9
Q.
Sorry for the interruption,
but
I just
10
thought we’d explain that.
11
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr. Norris
--
We have a
--
12
Yes, sir?
13
MR.
MEYER:
Could we see some of that?
There’s
14
not that many of us.
15
HEARING OFFICER:
Yeah.
16
If you could provide them with a copy.
17
MR. MEYER:
We could even share.
18
MR.
MUELLER:
I’ve got one extra.
19
HEARING OFFICER:
Could you give your name,
sir?
20
MR.
MEYER:
John Meyer,
RPC.
21
BY THE WITNESS:
22
A.
The base flow from the upper monitored zone
C
35
1
occurs over an area of 287 acres
approximately with,
2
again,
a hydraulic conductivity and a gradient.
Now,
3
th.e hydraulic conductivity of the zone underneath
is
4
80 percent of the hydraulic conductivity of the
5
monitored zone.
So it’s a little bit less.
That
6
data comes from the applicant’s data.
7
The gradient in the lower zone varies
8
significantly.
In some areas the vertical gradient,
9
the downward gradient,
is greater than the horizontal
10
gradients.
In other places,
it’s about
10 .percent of
11
the horizontal
gradients.
12
Q.
Chuck,
when you say lower zone here,
are
13
you referring now for the purposes of this particular
14
part of your presentation to the dolomite aquifer?
15
A.
The dolomite aquifer under the portion of
16
the dolomite aquifer,
the
15 feet that’s being
17
monitored.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
A.
The rest of the dolomite aquifer.
20
The gradient,
to minimize this calculation,
21
to use
the buzz word conservative,
I went ahead and
22
used the
10 percent vertical gradient rather than the
U
36
1
higher values.
And the area of flow is
83 times the
2
area of flow around the perimeter.
The result
is
3
that you can demonstrate that the amount of flow
4
going out the bottom of that aquifer
-—
not out the
5
bottom of the aquifer.
The amount of flow going
6
downward in the aquifer below the zone that’s being
7
monitored is
6.7 times the flow that’s going out
8
through the monitored perimeter.
9
87 percent of the
flow penetrates below
the
10
monitoring
zone.
87 particles out of a hundred that
11
move through that aquifer under that facility
12
leave
——
87 out
of a hundred particles that move
13
through the upper zone that’s being monitored leave
14
that zone not through the intervals being monitored,
15
but through pathways that are below the
zone being
16
monitored.
This is not in any way addressed in this
17
application.
18
There are still inconsistencies between the
19
engineering and the geology and the hydrogeology,
20
inconsistencies
or inadequacies.
The most glaring
21
one,
I think,
is the treatment of the magnitude and
22
the degree of the inward gradient.
C
.
37
1
At various places,
the head of the
2
landfill,
the head at the base of the landfill
liner
3
is used in calculations as being the elevation of the
4
.
base of the liner.
The head at the base of the liner
5
in some places is considered
——
and for some purposes
6
is considered the head of the water in the bedrock.
7
The head on the flanks
of the landfill in some
8
calculations is considered equivalent to the water
9
table.
10
The inward gradient is described as being
11
controlled by the water table for some applications
12
and being controlled by the heads in the bedrock in
13
other applications.
At some point in the application
14
and the testimony as justification for some kind of a
15
conclusion,
these various things have been used.
16
There’s been
13 months that have gone by
17
where some of this could have been resolved.
None of
18
it has been.
19
The groundwater impact assessment modeling,
20
the modeling that was relied upon by Ms.
Underwood as
21
an underpinning of her belief that the site is
22
protective of the public health, safety and welfare,
38
1
there are
severe problems with that modeling, some of
2
which were brought out in cross-examination but
some
3
of which still are out there.
4
.
There was,
as
I indicated,
just
a single
5
run.
Sensitivity data are an absolute must to
6
evaluate the meaning of any kind of modeling.
7
Mr.
Shue pointed this
out at the City hearings on a
8
recent landfill hearing on another facility;
His
9
observations relative to that are absolutely
10
pertinent to the missing information from this one.
11
The run that is included in this model,
although it’s
12
called a base case,
is not
a base case.
A base case
13
has to have its
foundation on site data and
14
engineering data generated in the application or
15
materials that are
known to exist.
The run in this
16
application was based on none of these.
It’s an
17
artificial construct.
18
Site flow is in three dimensions.
This
19
model considered only one dimension of flow.
The
20
inward gradient is controlled by the heads and the
21
sediments adjacent to the landfill.
The calculations
22
that are used use the
heads in the underlying
C
39
1
aquifer,
the bedrock aquifer.
The liners are of
2
known dimensions and properties,
and these were not
3
used.
The properties and liners are based on
4
arbitrary and largely meaningless
calculations found
5
in Appendix E-4—4,
and it’s a calculation that’s
6
directly in conflict with the calculation in Appendix
7
E—4—3.
8
The use
-—
Well,
the run is also not
a
9
conservative case.
A conservative case in the
first
10
place must be based on reality,
not arbitrary,
11
unsupported numbers,
and this calculation is not.
It
12
is not even based on a logical
and expected direction
13
of flow.
This calculation that
is
in the application
14
is a flow over
a period of over a thousand years of
15
vertically upward flow into the landfill.
16
As was pointed out,
and
I would like to
17
emphasize today,
the applicant’s own help model that
18
was relied upon by the applicant for the design of
19
leachate management
facilities
——
That’s
a standard
20
program that is appropriately used for exactly those
21
kinds
of things
—-
shows
a leachate head rise in the
22
landfill that
is
.6 feet per decade.
If there were
C.
40
1
an inward gradient
from the bedrock into the
2
landfill,
as represented by Ms.
Underwood and in the
3
calculation in the application, that gradient would
4
reverse itself and become an outward gradient and a
5
downward gradient within 200 years.
That was not
6
considered.
It was
not something that was evaluated
7
in this application.
It is a major inconsistency.
8
But
in a way,
the bigger problem with
9
respect to that is the concept that a
few defects per
10
acre in this landfill is in some way going
to create
11
an upward gradient
from the uppermost aquifer 19 feet
12
below
it and the base of the landfill.
That simply
13
is not,
cannot be the
case.
It is readily refutable
14
by just a consideration of basic flow according to
15
Darcy’s Law.
And Karlock Exhibit E is
a calculation
16
to demonstrate
that.
17
.
Ms. Underwood chose to consider and
18
calculate something that she called an equivalent
19
conductivity through the
entire liner system.
It’s
a
20
calculation that can be made, but it’s not the
21
calculation that’s important to understand what’s
22
happened, because we do know what
the characteristics
U
41
1
of that liner are.
We don’t have to go to some kind
2
of an average number.
Groundwater flow is not
3
controlled by average numbers.
It’s controlled by
4
the absolute numbers that are there.
And when you
5
have those numbers available,
you look at what they
6
tell you.
7
Now, with this calculation,
I considered
8
a
--
What
I wanted to know was
if
I have one foot of
9
leachate
inside the
geomembrane, what kind of head
10
outside that geomembrane do
I have to have to push
11
water through it at
a particular rate?
All right?
12
I’m using
--
I chose a half a gallon per day per
13
acre.
Now,
that’s about half the water that
14
Ms.
Underwood chose to make her calculation
on.
It
15
would take less pressure outside the liner to push
a
16
half a gallon through than it would take to push
a
17
~allon
through.
18
We know you convert that half a gallon per
19
day per acre to
a what’s called a specific
flux,
the
20
number
--
the cubic feet that crosses the square
21
footage per
day.
And that comes out to
a small
22
number,
a very small number,
one and a half
C
42
1
one—millionths of a cubic foot per square foot goes
2
through that.
Okay?
3
Simple Darcy Law says that the Q in this
4
case is equal to the hydraulic conductivity times the
5
gradient.
We know the hydraulic conductivity of the
6
liner.
The geomembrane,
not the whole liner.
We
7
don’t need to consider the whole liner for this
8
calculation.
Let’s find out what the pressure. is,
9
what the head is outside that plastic layer.
All
10
right?
11
The hydraulic conductivity of that liner
is
12
used in the help model as
2 times
10 to the minus
13
13
centimeters per second.
If you convert that to the
14
same units
of feet per day,
you can then calculate
15
what
I
is.
And from what the gradient
is, we know
16
that the gradient
is equal to the change in head
17
divided by the change in thickness.
The thickness of
18
that is only
.005 feet.
The head change that has to
19
occur across that liner in order to put a half
a
20
gallon a day into the
landfill is
13 and
a half feet
21
of differential water head against that liner.
22
We know that the typical
--
using the
0
43
1
average head of one
foot of leachate on top of the
2
liner says that the liner
——
the leachate head inside
3
.
on the inside surface of the liner is 621
feet.
The
4
head on the outside of the
liner has to be 13.5 feet
5
above
that,
which makes the head outside the liner
6
634
and a half feet.
634 and
a half feet is above
7
the head of the dolomite anywhere it’s been measured.
8
There
is,
in spite of the inward gradient
9
at the liner
--
the geomembrane liner
--
Yes, water
10
flows in at that point, but the gradient past that
11
liner through the composite clay liner and through
12
all the sediments is down into the aquifer.
It is
13
not
from that point on up into the landfill.
14
The calculation absolutely should have been
15
done with a downward gradient,
and that should have
16
been recognized and recognizable by any
17
hydrogeologist
that. is considering this site.
18
There are going to be changes to the
19
existing.flow system.
That at least has been
20
acknowledged partially in yesterday’s testimony by
21
Ms.
Underwood in that she.did acknowledge that there
22
would be some decrease
in the head of the uppermost
C
44
1
aquifer in response to building this big, impermeable
2
landfill on top of it.
You’re going to cut down the
3
available infiltration from above,
and that can only
4
have an effect of decreasing the heads, decreasing
5
that mound that’s in the bedrock under the landfill.
6
Without that infiltration,
that high decreases and
7
potentially disappears.
8
In addition,
Ms. Underwood pointed out
that
9
surface water monitoring features around the sides
10
and the ponds become sources
of infiltrating water
11
that tend to raise the water heads in at least the
12
glacial sediments and perhaps the underlying bedrock,
13
so that the areas right now that are high heads in
14
the bedrock will be lowered.
Those that are the low
15
areas where the ponds are sitting will tend to be
16
raised.
The effect is going to be to change the
17
directions of flow.
And without knowing where
18
those
—-
what those changes consist of and how big
19
they are,
you can’t pretend to know where you should
20
put your monitoring wells.
21
The
existing placement of the monitoring
22
wells
show large gaps on the eastern side of the
C
45
1
landfill.
The changes that will occur will tend to
2
minimize the north flow,
minimize the south
flow,
3
allow
a more typical z-egional flow to the
east across
4
the area where there are the
fewest monitoring
wells
5
proposed.
The monitoring program is designed on the
6
existing flow system, not the
flow system that will
7
develop.
And there has been no attempt in the last
8
13 months to quantify what those changes are going to
9
be and to modify the design to fit those changes.
10
Any and all of these issues can and should
11
have been addressed with a standard three—dimensional
12
flow model of the site that can be used to
13
realistically address
——
can also be used to
14
realistically address the contaminant migration from
15
the facility.
But regardless of the contaminant
16
transport model that’s used,
a three—dimensional flow
17
model has to be used to characterize the
18
post—installation,
the post—construction condition
19
because that
is what has to be monitored.
20
One of the issues that’s absolutely
21
unaddressed is flow in the shallow system and what
22
this landfill is going to mean to that.
If you put a
C
46
1
500—foot barrier to flow that goes some 20 feet or
2
more below the water table surface,
you are going to
3
affect the
flow in those shallow sediments.
To ~the
4
extent that the shallow water table is in the higher
5
elevations,
it’s to flow from the west toward the
6
east,
and the shallow sediments are going to be
7
interrupted.
It’s going to have to find its way
8
under or around that landfill.
The result is it is
9
going to be
—-
it is going to tend to dam up and back
10
up behind the landfill,
and you create higher water
11
table heads, higher shallow surficial sediment heads,
12
upgrade into the landfill; and correspondingly,
they
13
willbe
somewhat lower below the landfill.
14
The lower heads below that landfill are
15
probably not going
to be a problem,
but higher heads
16
upgrading in the landfill may be.
You have
17
residences
up there.
Those residences,
to the extent
18
that they,
for instance,
rely on septic systems,
if
19
the water tables rise excessively,
you can impact
a
20
septic system and its function.
You can create water
21
problems in basements where they didn’t exist before.
22
These are impacts that this facility can be
C
47
1
expected to have that should be explored with flow
2
modeling.
They are impacts that are absolutely
——
3
potential impacts that are absolutely unaffected by
4
any release from this landfill, but they are
5
potential impacts that can have a negative effect on
6
the public welfare.
And it is unacceptable that
7
these kinds of studies,
readily,
routinely available
8
and can be done,
have not been done by this
9
applicant.
10
The monitoring program is not
going to be
11
able to protect the public.
If this facility is
12
built successfully as designed,
there will be no way
13
with the existing monitoring system to determine
14
whether or not there’s
a problem with it until
15
decades after the pumps have been shut off.
The
--
16
If you have
-—
The current plan is that
——
The
17
current calculations show that about 19 gallons per
18
acre per day
—-
or per year
--
per day infiltrate
--
19
No,
it’s 19 per year,
I think.
Let me look and make
20
sure
I don’t
——
21
From Appendix K-l-l,
the calculated
22
infiltration through the cover is 18.1 gallons per
48
1
acre per day,
a flow through the bottom that is right
2
now perhaps
a half a gallon per acre per day.
If the
3
upper liner
——
the cover isn’t working,
if that
4
number triples,
if the base liner is ten—fold worse,
5
if it’s letting material water in from the bottom ten
6
times as
great,
those numbers are still very
7
manageable
leachate handling numbers and they set off
8
right now no
flags.
There is no required response on
9
the part of the operator to changes in the projected
10
leachate calculations
that would cause the operator
11
to look for what is causing leachate production
12
beyond what was
originally calculated.
13
An element of the monitoring system on an
14
inward gradient landfill should include performance
15
requirements with respect to leachate production.
If
16
the leachate production
is ten times what was
17
modeled,
that should be
a flag that the operator has
18
to explain.
It should be looked at on a cell—by—cell
19
basis,
not on
a landfill-wide basis,
because if you
20
have a ten-fold increase in one of
a dozen cells,
21
averaging that over a dozen cells doesn’t indicate
22
that there’s
a problem.
But if you’ve got a ten-fold
C
49
1
increase in one
cell,
it says that cell is not
2
performing
right,
and you should have to go in and
3
find out why and do something at that point,
not wait
4
decades before it actually becomes
a problem.
You
5
have the inherent ability to preemptively find a
6
problem and correct
it.
But the monitoring and
7
performance requirements of this landfill,
as
8
proposed to be operated, will not include those
9
elements.
10
The perimeter monitoring
for gas at this
11
landfill does not go below the saturated zone,
below
12
the water table.
We know from the existing facility
13
that gas can migrate through sands below
the water
14
table.
The gas monitoring system for this landfill
15
should include probes that go to the base of the
16
landfill whether or not that’s below
the water table.
17
Right now they go to the base of the landfill only if
18
the water table happens to be that low.
These are
19
two changes that have occurred and have been
20
implemented and integrated into other waste
21
management
facilities or at least an other waste
22
management
facility.
They should be included in this
C
50
1
facility.
2
And finally,
this facility should include,
3
as part of its monitoring
system, piezometers within
4
the waste,
something that tells you whether or not
5
leachate
is building up in those cells
in the
6
landfill.
And the reason you need those is
it is
7
possible to plug your leachate collection blanket.
8
If that leachate collection blanket doesn’t work,
9
then leachate is not getting into your collection
10
.
system,
you’re not producing leachate,
that can
11
actually be taken
as
a sign that leachate production
12
is done and everything is fine with the
landfill.
13
But
if that blanket has become plugged and
14
the leachate
is building up in the landfill,
you’re
15
completely misinterpreting why you’re not producing
16
as much leachate.
Verification of no produced
17
leachate with the
fact that there is no accumulating
18
leachate in the landfill
is the only way to get
19
around that misinterpretation.
And that should be
20
part of the landfill monitoring and performance.
21
Q.
Mr.
Norris,
Ms.
Underwood opined yesterday
22
that the inclusion of sensitivity analyses in an
0
51
1
application
—-
And we’re talking about sensitivity
2
analyses of the groundwater impact assessment.
She
3
opined that the inclusion of those is really more
4
appropriately done at the permitting stage.
5
Mr.
Shue,
the County’s consultant, opined
6
at the Town and Country hearings that the inclusion
7
of those analyses is essential to make determination
8
at
the siting phase as to whether or not the
facility
9
is really protective of the public health, safety and
10
welfare.
11
Who do you agree with?
12
A.
I agree with Mr.
Shue not only on the issue
13
of sensitivity runs with the groundwater impact
14
assessment, but with the inclusion of all data,
15
everything
known,
I think it is inappropriate to the
16
point of being unconscionable for someone at any
17
aspect of these kinds of siting hearings to be asking
18
the siting authority just to trust me,
I’ve looked at
19
that data and it’s fine.
That data,
all of that
20
information has got to be out on the table, available
21
for full review,
not just after the hearings, but
22
before the hearings where all interested parties can
C
52
1
have the opportunity to look at them.
2
Q.
Mr.
Norris, Ms.
Underwood also opined
3
yesterday that the pressure gradient in the
4
groundwater underneath and in contact with the bottom
5
of the liner in an inward gradient situation will
6
cause a reversal of the existing downward gradient
7
into an upward gradient for tens of feet.
8
Mr.
Shue opined at the Town and Country
9
hearings
--
And,
again,
he’s the County’s
10
consultant
——
that construction of a relatively
11
impermeable liner will not reverse the downward
12
gradient below that liner.
13
Who is correct?
14.
A.
Well,
as demonstrative of the calculations
15
that
I made in Karlock E,
Mr.
Shue is absolutely on
16
the mark,
and Ms. Underwood is simply badly mistaken.
17
Q.
Anything else to add,
Mr. Norris?
18
A.
No.
19
MR.
MUELLER:
Thank you.
20
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr. Moran?
21
MR.
MORAN:
Thank you,
Mr. Hearing Officer.
22
C
53
1
CROSS-EXAMINATION
2
BY MR.
MORAN:
3
.
Q.
Mr.
Norris, these statements you’ve made
4
today are essentially.the
same concerns you expressed
5
during the first set of hearings on this application;
6
isn’t that correct?
7
A.
Many of them are.
The calculation to
8
demonstrate the invalidity of the reversal of
9
gradient is certainly new.
The two Karlock exhibits
10
are quantification of new materials or quantification
11
of previous concerns,
yes.
12
Q.
Well,
the new information you were asked
13
about was the testimony Mr.
Shue gave at the Town and
14
Country proceeding,
isn’t that correct?
Mr. Mueller
15
didn’t ask you at the last set of hearings about
16
Mr.
Shue’s testimony at Town and Country,
did he?
17
A.
No.
That testimony hadn’t occurred yet,
I
18
don’t believe.
19
Q.
And you had an opportunity to review that
20
testimony;
isn’t that correct?
21
A.
Yes,
I did read it.
22
Q.
And
I believe last time we were here,
I
C
54
1
asked you about whether you had reviewed any of the
2
application,
any part
of the application filed with
3
the City of Kankakee with respect to the Town and
4
Country application.
And you said you hadn’t
5
reviewed any of
it;
isn’t that correct?
6
A.
That’s correct.
7
Q.
So since that date,
you’ve now been
8
instructed to review at least part
of the testimony
9
that was presented in that siting application
10
proceeding;
is that correct?
11
A.
I was asked to review testimony that was
12
offered in the Town and Country subsequent to our
13
last hearings,
yes.
14
Q.
That’s right.
And Mr. Mueller asked
to you
15
do that,
didn’t he?
16
A.
Yes, he did.
17
Q.
And he asked you to review Mr.
Shue’s
18
testimony,
and that was the only part of that siting
19
proceeding
that you’ve reviewed;
isn’t that correct?
20
A.
That’s
correct.
21
Q.
Now, let’s just step back for a moment and
22
address the questions
that you’ve looked at here
C
55
1
today.
Now,
last time you were here,
you said that
2
you were going to provide your observations,
which
I
3
believe you’d characterize your testimony here today,
4
and that
you weren’t offering an opinion that this
5
application failed to meet Criterion
2;
is that
6
correct?
7
A.
Yes.
8
.
Q.
Is that still your position that all of the
9
observations you’ve given here today do not add up to
10
an opinion by you that this application does not meet
11
Criterion
2;
is that correct?
12
MR.
MUELLER:
I’m going to object.
I think he’s
13
asked a compound question where he’s stated something
14
.
in two different ways.
One is whether or not
15
Mr. Norris has an opinion that the application
16
doesn’t meet
the criterion,
and the other one was
17
whether or not
Mr. Norris has an opinion that it’s
18
impossible to tell whether the application meets
the
19
criterion.
I think Mr.
Moran,
in fairness,
needs to
20
carefully distinguish between those two.
21
HEARING OFFICER:
You want to rephrase your
22
question,
Mr. Moran?
0
56
1
MR.
MORAN:
Certainly.
2
BY MR. MORAN:
3
Q.
Mr.
Norris, have your observations that
4
you’ve given us here today amounted to a conclusion
5
by you that this application does not meet
6
Criterion 2?
7
A.
That’s
a very precise question.
And to be
8
honest,
I lost concentration halfway through it.
I
9
would ask to have it repeated.
If you’d like to have
10
it read back,
I know you constructed it very
11
carefully.
I’m not asking you to rephrase
it.
I’m
12
just asking to hear it again.
13
MR.
MORAN:
If the court reporter could read
14
back my question?
15
(Record read as requested.)
16
BY THE WITNESS:
17
A.
No.
My observations today reflect
the
18
geologic and hydrogeologic problems with the existing
19
application.
20
Q.
So you are not testifying here today that
21
this application does not meet Criterion
2;
is that
22
correct?
C
-
57
1
A.
Yes.
I
no longer testify to that effect at
2
hearings.
I have come to the conclusion through the
3
years that
it is inappropriate
for people,
4
geologists,
to make that determination
one way or the
5
other.
It’s really outside the venue
of the science
6
of geology.
They can determine whether or not the
7
information exists
for a body to make that
8
determination; but a determination
of safety is not
a
9
geologic determination,
it is a combination of policy
10
and risk and other things that are non-geologic that
11
have to be factored into
it.
So
I no longer make
12
that determination.
13
Q.
And when did you decide that you would no
14
longer make a determination in reviewing a siting
15
application that that application did not meet any of
16
the criteria?
17
A.
Well,
I don’t think I’ve ever considered
18
any of.the criteria except Criterion
2, but
I would
19
think it’s been at least three, maybe four years
20
since I’ve made such a determination.
21
Q.
So the last time you recall having drawn a
22
conclusion that
a siting application did not meet
C
58
1
Criterion
2 was approximately three or four years
2
ago?
3
A.
I believe
so.
4
Q.
Now,
addressing that
issue,
you have,
in
5
fact,
been asked by Mr. Mueller to review a number of
6
siting applications;
isn’t that correct?
7
A.
I have looked at a number of siting
8
applications for Mr. Mueller and for other people.
9
Q.
Well,
I want to focus on those that
10
Mr.Mueller
has asked you to review.
11
MR.
MUELLER:
I’m going to object, Mr.
McCarthy.
12
This is repetitive and completely cumulative
of
13
previous
cross-examination.
Mr. Norris’s background
14
has been completely explored by both the County’s
15
attorney and Mr.
Moran at past hearings
and,
in fact,
16
is beyond the
scope of today’s direct since we didn’t
17
review his background any further,
as that would have
18
been cumulative and repetitive on my part.
19
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Moran?
20
MR.. MORAN:
Well,
in fact,
there have been
21
developments since the last hearing.
There have been
22
a number of issues raised,
in fact, by Mr. Mueller’s
C
59
1
questioning of Mr. Norris with regard to additional
2
reviews he has performed of another siting
3
application in this county.
And
I believe that I’m
4
entitled to question him about what
I consider to be
5
his bias in reviewing these applications.
6
HEARING OFFICER:
I’ll allow it.
7
MR.
MUELLER:
Mr.
McCarthy?
8
HEARING OFFICER:
Yes.
9
MR.
MUELLER:
If he wants to limit his questions
10
to what work Mr. Norris has
done since he last
11
testified,
I think that’s fair subject matter.
But
12
if we’re just going to rehash what happened in 1993
13
and
‘95,
that certainly is repetitive and cumulative.
14
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Moran?
15
MR.
MORAN:
May
I proceed?
16
HEARING OFFICER:
You may.
17
MR.
MORAN:
Thank you.
18
HEARING OFFICER:
The objection is overruled.
19
BY MR.
MORAN:
20
Q.
Mr. Mueller asked you on a number of
21
occasions to review siting applications filed in
22
various venues within this state;
is that correct?
C
60
1
A.
Yes,
he has.
2
Q.
And by my count,
before this application
3
that you’ve reviewed here today,
he has asked you to
4
review seven siting applications.
Would that be an
5
accurate number?
6
A.
I don’t have my resume with me,
but
I think
7
it would certainly be
a reasonable number.
8
Q.
Well,
just to refresh your recollection,
9
last year when
I asked you,
you said there were six
10
including the first application filed here.
11
A.
Okay.
Well,
this application then would be
12
No.
7.
13
Q.
Well,
no.
I think since the last hearing,
14
didn’t you review
a siting application in Rochelle
15
that Mr. Mueller asked you to review?
16
A.
Yes.
I’m sorry.
Rochelle would be seven.
17
This would be eight.
18
Q.
So this would be No.
8?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And in those
seven siting applications that
21
Mr. Mueller asked
you to review, one of your
22
observations in each of those seven siting
C
61
1
applications you reviewed was that the proposed
2
monitoring for that facility was
inadequate;
is that
3
correct?
4
MR.
MUELLER:
Mr.
McCarthy,
let the record show
5
my continuing objection to this line of questioning.
6
I will not interrupt by objecting to every question.
7
HEARING OFFICER:
Fine.
8
BY THE WITNESS:
9
A.
Yes,
I have always found room for
10
improvement with the monitoring systems.
11
Q.
And in
fact,
during the Rochelle hearings,
12
you were asked about whether you had testified in
13
prior siting applications at the request of
14
Mr.
Mueller;
is that correct?
15
A.
I would imagine.
16
Q.
And in that hearing,
you indicated that in
17
those prior siting applications you reviewed,
that
18
you would have testified in each of those cases that
19
the siting criteria were not met.
Isn’t that what
20
you testified in Rochelle?
21
A.
That
I would have testified to that effect
22
or that
I did testify to that effect?
C
62
1
Q.
That your testimony in Rochelle
is when
2
Mr. Mueller asked you to review a siting application,
3
that
in each of the cases prior to Rochelle that you
4
had reviewed,
that you would have testified that
5
those
siting applications did not satisfactory
6
Criterion 2?
7
A.
Yes.
Were
I wearing a hat where
it was
8
appropriate to make that determination,
I believe
9
that would have been my determination in each of
10
those cases.
11
Q.
And in at least two of those siting
12
applications that you testified regarding your
13
observations,
that testimony was given since 1998;
14
isn’t that true?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Now, during the period during which
17
Mr. Mueller was asking you to review siting
18
applications, had he ever asked you to review the
19
siting application that was submitted by Town and
20
Country Utilities to the City of Kankakee?
21
A.
No.
22
Q.
And in that instance,
Mr. Mueller was
C
63
1
representing the applicant;
is that correct?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
And
I believe what you said a few moments
4
ago was that he did ask you to review one portion of
5
the testimony given in that proceeding,
and that was
6
testimony provided by Mr.
Shue;
is that correct?
7
A.
Yes,
the testimony,
but not
the.
8
application.
9
Q.
Precisely.
10
And your review was of Mr.
Shue’s
11
testimony,
in which Mr.
Shue talked about sensitivity
12
analyses that would be performed in conjunction with
13
the groundwater impact assessment modeling done
for
14
purposes of that application;
is that correct?
15
A.
That was part of Mr.
Shue’s testimony,
yes.
16
Q.
Now,
have you ever performed any
17
groundwater impact assessment in connection with a
18
permit application to the
Illinois Environmental
19
Protection Agency?
20
A.
No.
As
I testified in the previous
21
hearings here in response to that question,
I have
22
not.
C
64
1
Q.
Do you know what the POLLUTE model
is?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
Is that a program which allows an analysis
4
to be performed and a model to be run in connection
5
with a permit application for
a solid waste facility
6
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency?
7
A.
It is one that can be used,
yes.
8
Q.
Had you ever performed or prepared or run a
9
POLLUTE model in connection with a permit application
10
to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency?
11
A.
No.
Again,
as
I believe I already
12
testified a year ago,
I have not.
13
Q.
Do you know what a MIGRATE model
is?
14
A.
I have seen the program.
I’ve heard about
15
it.
I have not used it.
16
Q.
Have you ever prepared or run any
17
sensitivi~tyanalyses in connection with a model
18
presented in connection with a permit application
to
19
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency?
20
A.
No,
I have not.
21
Q.
Mr.
Norris,
you testified a little bit
last
22
time about your observations
and testimony provided
C
65
1
for a proposed landfill in Will County,
Illinois,
2
which was proposed by Waste Management of Illinois,
3
Inc.
4
Do you recall that question and that
5
testimony you gave during the last hearing?
6
A.
I recall that we discussed some aspects of
7
that,
yes.
8
Q.
And in that siting application,
you,
again,
9
testified as you have here that the monitoring system
10
proposed for that landfill was
inadequate;
is that
11
correct?
12
MR.
MUELLER:
I’m going to object,
Mr. McCarthy.
13
Mr.
Norris’s testimony at Will County was extensively
14
explored last time;
and, in fact,
Waste Management
15
admitted into evidence exhibits which they believed
16
impeached Mr.
Norris’s testimony with regard to that.
17
And,
therefore,
he already
--
he either has been
18
impeached or he hasn’t,
but it should not be allowed
19
to happen again.
20
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr. Moran?
21
MR.
MORAN:
I’m just setting the groundwork
for
22
my next question.
C
66
1
HEARING OFFICER:
It’s overruled.
2
You may continue.
3
BY THE WITNESS:
4
A.
I’m sorry.
What was the question?
5
Q.
Do you iecall
that
I
asked you last time.
6
regarding your testimony in the Will County siting
7
application,
that you had testified there that the
8
proposed monitoring system was inadequate?
9
A.
Yes.
The design was essentially the
same,
10
the geology was
essentially the same as this
site,
11
and
I believe my criticisms were essentially the
same
12
as well.
13
Q.
And in that case,
both the siting committee
14
that considered your testimony and the Will County
15
Board rejected that testimony; isn’t that what
I
16
asked you and you acknowledged that fact?
17
MR.
MUELLER:
Again,
I’m going to object.
We’re
18
just repeating the past.
19
HEARING OFFICER:
Overruled.
20
BY THE WITNESS:
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Are you aware that that proposed facility
C
67
1
has been permitted and they anticipate breaking
2
ground on that facility tomorrow?
3
A.
No,
I was unaware that they were breaking
4
ground.
I was
aware it was in the final stages
for
5
approval,
in part because of the negotiations and
6
work that
I did with Waste Management
just a little
7
over
a year ago regarding ~hanges
to the monitoring
8
program that incorporated exactly some of the changes
9
Ithink Kankakee County should insist
on.
10
Q.
And we,
indeed,
covered your claim that
11
somehow you were working in connection with Waste
12
Management on the permitting of that facility;
isn’t
13
that correct?
14
A.
I don’t
know that it was
so much working
15
with Waste Management as perhaps working against
16
Waste Management; but nonetheless,
the changes that
I
17
proposed to monitoring program and protocols were
18
incorporated in the final
application to the State,
I
19
believe.
20
MR.
MORAN:
I have no further questions of this
21
witness.
22
HEARING OFFICER:
Thank you.
0
68
1
Mr.
Flynn,
any cross-examination of this
2
witness?
3
MR.
FLYNN:
Just one question.
4
CROSS-EXAMINATION
5
BY MR.
FLYNN:
6
Q.
If I understand your testimony correctly,
7
it’s your opinion that there’s insufficient data from
8
a hydrogeological perspective to make a determination
9
as to whether or not Criterion
2 has been met?
10
A.
Yes,
I believe that’s the case.
A
11
combination of insufficient data and data that has
12
been misdealt with.
13
MR.
FLYNN:
Thank you.
14
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Power?
15
MR.
POWER:
No questions.
.
16
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Runyon?
17
MR.
RUNYON:
Yes,
I have a few questions.
18
CROSS-EXAMINATION
19
BY MR. RUNYON:
20
Q.
Mr. Norris, were you here last night when
21
Ms.
Underwood was
testifying?
22
A.
Yes.
0
69
1
Q.
And did you hear Ed Smith ask Ms. Underwood
2
if,
in fact,
there were leaks through the system,
3
that the monitoring wells would pick up those leaks?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
Isn’t it true that leachate tends to
6
migrate in different patterns?
For instance,
7
leachate can migrate in
a plumage,
a plume-type
8
pattern;
is that correct?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Isn’t it also correct that leachate can
11
follow
a migration path like
a finger,
straight out
12
in a very narrow corridor?
13
A.
A leachate release will move in a pattern
14
that is controlled by the geology and the
15
hydrogeology.
If the
flow path and the
flow system
16
is a large
system and a fairly uniform system,
then
17
you get what is more of a traditional concept of a
18
plume.
If the geology and the hydrogeology is such
19
that the flow path is a very discreet,
contained
20
system as in a thin sand lens,
stringer,
a fracture
21
system,
then the leachate can move and will move
22
preferentially through that system more analogous,
as
C
70
1
you suggested,
to
a finger.
It’s all controlled by
2
the geology and the hydrogeology.
3
Q.
Isn’t it true that should the leachate
4
migrate in one of those narrow finger patterns,
let’s
5
say,
through the fractured bedrock or something like
6
that,
that could actually go right between the
7
monitoring wells
and never be detected?
8
A.
It’s well demonstrated in the literature
9
and experience that the more heterogeneous the system
10
you have,
the more discreet the flow paths,
the more
11
difficult it is to detect monitoring.
And yes,
12
moving through
a discreet
fracture or a sand stringer
13
that doesn’t exist as a broad layer can cause a
14
monitoring well to not detect leachate release that
15
has moved past
it.
Yes.
16
Q.
The computer modeling programs that have
17
been referred to can have a lot of variation in
18
output depending upon your input,
can’t they?
19
A.
Absolutely.
20
Q.
So if it’s garbage
in,
it’s garbage out?
2.1
A.
That is a
——
22
Q.
Or trash in and trash
out?.
C
71
1
A.
It’s
a standard axiom;
and it’s standard
2
because it’s true,
yes.
The outputs of a model are
3
certainly no better than the value of the data and
4
the choices of the input parameters that go into the
5
model.
6
Q.
So then the person running the program can
7
certainly manipulate
the outcome of that model;
is
8
that correct?
9
A.
Yes,
but
I don’t think there are very many
10
professionals
in this world that manipulate
the
11
outcome so much as they make bad or uninformed
12
choices or they overlook things.
I hesitate on the
13
manipulate part because it kind of implies an
14
antisocial aspect that
I would like to think doesn’t
15
exist among professionals.
But somebody can
16
manipulate
a program,
absolutely.
17
Q.
That’s all
I wanted to know about that.
18
Thank you.
19
Isn’t it true that most of the modeling
20
programs,
however,
assume a certain number of faults
21
per acre in the liner system?
22
A.
Well,
the programs that were used in this
0
72
1
case,
the HELP model and the POLLUTE model, do have
2
standard assumptions to that effect.
If you don’t
3
assume some kind of defect,
for instance,
in a liner,
4
then all you have is the diffusion of some materials
5
through that liner and you have no flow whatsoever.
6
So you’re going to be calculating flow through the
7
liner,
you can’t have zero permeability.
So some
8
assumptions are made that there’s
at least a minimum
9
kind of number of faults in the liner.
10
Q.
So we can kind of compare this,
a landfill
11
with a liner like this,
as
a big bathtub with
a
12
baggie inside it?
13
A.
That’s
a
-—
I mean,
visually,
I like that.
14
I
suppose you could consider it that way.
15
Q.
And isn’t it true that the those liners are
16
highly susceptible to penetration through things like
17
punctures,
even if the wells don’t break, that they
18
can be punctured?
19
A.
There are ways in which
a liner can be
20
damaged as
a result of construction.
Hopefully,
you
21
know,
those are caught when they happen, but the
22
answer to the question is yes.
C
73
1
Q.
Isn’t
it also true that there are some
2
chemical compounds that do penetrate the liner?
3
A.
To my understanding,
yes.
4
Q.
Okay.
5
A.
I should
——
Penetrate,
I think, may not be
6
an optimum word there because it implies some kind of
7
a break.
The chemicals diffuse or move through the
8
liner,
but they don’t penetrate it in the
sense that
9
they break
it.
F
10
Q.
Isn’t it true that each year the scientific
11
industrial community produces quite
a number of new
12
chemicals?
13
A.
I
think that’s probably a fair general
14
statement.
15
Q.
Isn’t it also true that ultimately, most of
16
those chemicals will end up in a landfill
eventually?
17
A.
Again,
just speaking as
a lay person,
I
18
mean,
it’s not my area of expertise,
but there
19
certainly is that potential that they will end up
20
there,
yes.
21
Q.
Isn’t it true also that those chemicals can
22
create,
if admixed inside landfill,
a compound the
from Dr.
A.
Q.
Do you recall the conclusion of that
letter, what he said about the present expansion in
terms
of its hydrogeologic desirability?
A.
Well,
I
don’t have it in front of me,
12
but
--
13
Q.
Would
you like to refer to it?
14
A.
The thrust,
as
I recall,
is that he felt
15
that there were less optimal conditions
at this
16
location than there would be in other areas of
17
Kankakee.
18
Q.
Do you recall on what basis he drew that
19
conclusion?
20
A.
He was looking at some state survey
21
geologic mapping of Kankakee County.
22
Q.
I just have one other question for you,
and
75
it’s really
a question that that Byron Sandberg asked
me to ask.
And I’m not
even certain
I understand
what I’m asking.
But
I believe he gave you
-—
MR.
RUNYON:
And
I don’t recall, Mr.
Hearing
Officer,
which exhibit
of Sandberg’s this was,
whether it was
1
or
2 or what.
BY MR. RUNYON:
Q.
But it refers to
--
And maybe you’ll recall
74
result of which
A.
Well,
afield even for
Q.
Okay.
Do you
Mehnert
Yes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
we can’t predict?
that’s getting a little too far
me to comment on it as
a lay person.
Just
a couple of other questions.
recall me showing you this letter
yesterday?
LII
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
——
to lineaments.
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And Mr.
Sandberg wanted to know what impact
13
lineaments have on the proposed site.
14
A.
If
I could have that document to look at
15
it,
I think it would
help.
16
Q.
Sure.
17
A.
The
document is
a number of pages that come
18
from an Illinois Water Survey Investigation Report
19
No.
111 by Stuart Cravens,
et al.
In particular,
the
20
question apparently
is related to Figure
9, which is
21
a
——
The figure shows
a series of
——
Well,
the
22
caption to the figure is lineaments located by
C
76
1
interpretation of aerial photographs at two locations
2
in Kankakee County.
One of those two locations is
a
3
location that includes the proposed landfill location
4
and areas
to the north and east of it.
That figure
5
shows a number of the
lineaments that were mapped
6
from the aerial photographs that run to the northeast
7
from the area of the
facility.
8
And another figure in Mr.
Sandberg’s
9
exhibit is
a head gradient map for the Silurian
10
dolomite,
which,
again,
shows the
location of the
11
facility relative to the map and a pattern of heads
12
within on that potentiometric map that would short
13
northeastward flow in the dolomite.
And that,
too,
14
is apparently from the Illinois Water Survey
15
Ihvestigation Report No.
111.
16
His question to me yesterday,
which
I am
17
going to infer is the one he was trying to get you to
18
ask,
is what the importance might be of the fact that
19
there
is one of the larger lineaments that appears to
20
correspond with the flow direction from the site from
21
the
Iroquois River and whether or not
--
what import
22
that might
have.
So with that as background, what
I
U
77
1
observed to him is that there are
a host of things
2
that can cause lineaments to show up on air photos.
3
They are
--
can range from glacial features
4
to bedrock faults to varied sediment features that
5
impact surface vegetation to
--
They are a starting
6
point
for a way to localize
a geologic investigation.
7
Certainly,
some things that cause lineaments can also
8
be the types
of things that represent enhanced flow
9
paths,
but you can’t make the assumption outright
10
that because there’s a lineament there,
there is an
11
enhanced flow path.
But it does suggest
a geologic
12
anomaly that would be worth investigating because
13
that
is
a possibility.
14
MR.
RUNYON:
Thank you very much.
I believe
15
that’s all
I have for
you.
16
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Bruck?
17
MR.
BRUCK:
No.
18
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Porter?
19
MR.
PORTER:
Just a few.
20
CROSS-EXAMINATION
21
BY MR.
PORTER:
22
Q.
Good morning.
C
78
1
A.
Good morning.
2.
Q.
Earlier you testified that there were some
3
problems with the
--
You believed there was a need
4
for additional monitoring wells.
Exactly where?
5
A.
Well,
until
a flow system is determined or
6
projected,
modeled for conditions after the facility
7
is put
in,
I
would not venture to even begin to try
8
and locate them.
That’s one of the problems with
9
what has been done here is that the monitoring system
10
has been installed or proposed based on conditions
11
without
a 5,000—by-2,500—foot barrier to vertical
12
flow and shallow horizontal
flow.
And until the
13
impact of that has been determined, there
is no point
14
in trying to locate specifically where you would put
15
monitoring wells.
16
One thing that
I think can be said is as a
17
generalization,
however,
is that a monitoring system
18
that is proposed and is put
in should include
19
monitoring
at depths below
the 15 feet that are
20
currently proposed.
Everything on the site indicates
21
a significant movement of water through the aquifer
22
below that top 15 feet and regardless of the
C
79
1
geographic position.
Unless the three—dimensional
2
modeling somehow showed that the vertical
gradient
3
disappeared
--
And
I would not, based
on experience,
4
expect that
--
then the monitoring system should
5
certainly include an increased vertical depth than
6
what’s presently there.
7
Q.
So you don’t have any specific criticism
8
about the location of the monitoring wells,
correct?
9
A.
Some of those locations may end up being
10
perfectly valid monitoring
locations.
There’s no way
11
to know.
12
Q.
You do have specific criticism that the
13
depth
of the monitoring wells is not sufficient;
is
14
that correct?
What depth do you propose?
15
A.
Again,
I would rely on a three-dimensional
16
flow model
of the system with the constructed
17
facility and then look at what that hydrogeologic
18
situation says in terms of where the monitoring needs
19
to occur.
20
Q.
But you personally did not run such a
21
model,
correct?
22
A.
No.
C
80
1
Q.
And you don’t have any specific depth that
2
you’re proposing today, correct?
3
A.
Not today,
no.
4
Q.
You did mention that you thought leachate
5
monitoring systems could be improved; am I correct?
6
A.
I think that part of the overall monitoring
7
program for the landfill should be one in which
8
leachate volumes on a cell-by-cell basis
are used in
9
a performance aspect,
in that if the leachate volumes
10
that are being produced are sufficiently different
11
from those that are anticipated, that they be used
——
12
that that information then be used to trigger
13
investigation of why that occurs.
14
Q.
Is there a specific piece of equipment that
15
you’re proposing?
16
A.
Well,
in this particular
case,
it’s merely
17
a matter of measuring the cell-by-cell production and
18
having those numbers be used against a standard or
19
criteria to determine when they have become anomalous
20
enough that they need to be investigated as
a
21
potential problem.
22
Q.
And the only other suggestion that
I heard
C
81
1
was
something about piezometers within the waste.
2
A.
Right.
3
Q.
Can you go over that again
for me briefly?
4
A.
Yes.
I think that the water levels
——
the
5
leachate levels within the landfill should be
6
monitored as a routine part of the monitoring program
7
for the landfill.
8
Q.
If
I
also understood correctly,
this is the
9
first time you’ve ever been retained by Mr. Mueller
10
and not come to the conclusion that Criterion
2 had
11
not been met;
is that correct?
12
A.
No,
that is not correct.
13
Q.
Have you ever testified for Mr. Mueller
14
that Criterion
2 was met?
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
Other than this hearing,
have you ever
17
testified that you had no opinion regarding
18
Criterion 2?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And in which hearing was that?
21
A.
A previous hearing here,
and the Rochelle
22
hearing
I know for certain.
To be honest,
I’m not
C
82
1
sure when I shifted on that and determined that
I was
2
uncomfortable with the concept of a hydrogeologist
3
making that determination.
4
Q.
If all of these changes are made,
the
5
deeper monitoring wells are employed,
the leachate is
6
monitored as to each cell,
piezometers
are used,
7
would you have an opinion that Criterion
2 was met?
8
A.
An opinion as to whether or not there were
9
sufficient data for someone to reasonably make a
10
determination would have to be made based on an
11
application upon which those kinds
of changes were
12
incorporated.
In other words, we still haven’t
13
seen
——
It hasn’t been made available
——
what the
14
time series information from the existing or the
15
expansion area are, what the chemistry information
16
from the expansion area
is.
There’s
a lot of missing
17
information from this application that can’t be
18
patched up just by saying okay,
we’ll put piezometers
19
in the landfill,
we’ll deepen the gas collection
20
wells,
and we’ll make
a monitoring
——
create a
21
monitoring program for leachate volumes.
Those are
22
things
that
I think are needed in order to reach the
C
83
1
point you can make
a decision, but there’s also a
2
whole set of data that are not available yet to even
3
make a determination as to what else might be needed.
4
So
I mean,
I think ultimately,
those
5
aspects would provide
-—
those monitoring changes
6
would provide significant elements for
someone to
7
make
a determination of safety,
but they don’t repair
8
this application and allow one from this application
9
todoso.
10
Q.
So if
I understood that correctly,
even if
11
those changes were made,
you would still have no
12
opinion on Criterion
2,
correct?
13
A.
Even if there were a
—-
those changes were
14
made and if there were appropriate and correct
15
modeling that was
done
-—
the 3—D modeling was done
16
and the monitoring wells were designed based on that
17
modeling for the existing facility,
as
a
18
hydrogeologist,
I still will no longer make the
19
determination that the public health, safety and
20
welfare would be protected.
21
If all that were done and all of the data
22
that were there
that,
as
a city council member,
as a
C
84
1
member of the public or as
a decision maker
for the
2
County, that the data were there to legitimately make
3
that,
I
would so state.
But as a testifying
4
hydrogeologist,
I would not make that determination
5
anymore.
I don’t think it’s an appropriate
6
determination to be made by someone wearing the hat
7
of a professional geologist and hydrogeologist.
8
Q.
Are you aware
——
9
A.
That’s a change.
I mean,
I have made that
10
determination in the past.
11
Q.
Are you aware that the hydrogeology/geology
12
of the waste site is different than the City site?
13
A.
Anecdotally,
I’ve heard discussions that
14
suggest that,
yes.
I’ve not looked at that
15
application at all.
16
Q.
You’re aware that the City proposes to
17
actually build
a landfill directly into the aquifer
18
without the in situ in place?
19
A.
I have
——
I have
——
Yeah,
that’s consistent
20
with what I’ve heard.
Yes.
21
Q.
You understand
that that was
what Mr. Shue
22
was testifying regarding,
correct?
n
85
1
A.
Part of Mr.
Shue’s testimony was to that
2
effect.
I did not have the technical materials.
I
3
have no idea whether those technical details and
4
discussion were supported or supportable by the
5
application or not.
The comments that
I have been
6
referencing to Mr.
Shue here are independent of any
7
geology or hydrogeology of the
site.
It’s basic
8
things that need to be done in order to get to the
9
point that you can legitimately tell a hearing body
10
you have the information you need to make an informed
11
decision.
.12
So
I could care less
--
I mean,
Mr.
Shue’s
13
comments as to detailed problems
with,
for instance,
14
running a groundwater impact
assessment,
I don’t know
15
I have no opinion on whatsoever.
His observation
16
that the application for siting purposes should not
17
be considered complete without sensitivity runs
is,
I
18
think,
absolutely on the mark.
His observations that
19
three—dimensional modeling are the only way you’re
20
going to be able to determine the point at which
a
21
gradient reverses itself or doesn’t reverse itself is
22
absolutely on the mark.
But that’s independent of
0
86
1
the specific
——
2
Q.
Right.
And you understand that was
3
particularly important in regard to the City’s
4
application because they were proposing to build a
5
landfill directly in the aquifer,
correct?
6
A.
It is absolutely as important with this
7
facility.
8
Q.
You are aware that the in situ in place
are
9
going to remain in place in regards to this facility,
10
correct?
11
A.
The ones that lie below the base of the
12
landfill liner,
yes.
13
Q.
Are you indicating that there is no
14
hydrogeological condition that would ever cause
you
15
to hence~forthhave an opinion that
a landfill does or
16
does not protect the public health,
safety and
17
welfare?
18
A.
My testimony as
a professional geologist,
19
as
I perceive
th.e duties
at this point,
and as
far as
20
I
know,
indefinitely in the
future,
are that my job
21
is to determine whether the data are adequate for the
22
conclusions, whether the conclusions are consistent
C
87
1
with the data,
that a complete and accuTate
2
description of the existing facility and the facility
3
after the construction of the landfill are correct
4
and accurate and that there is
a monitoring program
5
that i~illallow one to determine there’s
a problem if
6
a problem develops.
If those conditions are met,
7
then
I can testify to the county you have what you
8
need to make the decision or the city or whatever the
9
decision body is.
That is the limit of what my job
10
is.
11
Q.
Have you ever provided that testimony to a
12
county or local municipality trying to decide a
13
siting hearing that they have all the information
14
they need to come to a conclusion?
15
A.
It’s
a long time ago.
There may be one.
16
I’m trying to think what
--
It’s in the southern part
17
of the state.
18
Q.
Was it more than a decade ago?
19
A.
Yeah,
it would have been more than
a decade
20
ago.
21
Q.
In the past decade since you’ve been
22
testifying, have any of the
facilities testified at
a
ri
88
1
local municipality did not have sufficient
2
information eventually
received permit approval from
3
the
IEPA?
4
A.
Oh,
yes,
absolutely.
5
MR.
PORTER:
Nothing further.
6
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Smith?
7
MR.
SMITH:
No,
sir.
8
HEARING OFFICER:
Ms.
Harvey?
9
MS.
HARVEY:
No,
thank you.
10
HEARING OFFICER:
Members
of the Regional
11
Planning Commission?
12
Mr. Washington?
13
.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
14
BY MR. WASHINGTON:
15
Q.
Mr. Norris,
in reference to your statement
16
about blocking the leachate flow channels,
an
17
operator with the knowledge of past landfill
18
performances and data that supports the expected
19
amount or typical amount of leachate to be produced
20
at any given time during the life of the landfill,
21
why would there be
a misinterpretation of the data of
22
leachate produced of that landfill at any given time?
0
89
1
A.
One of the concepts of the contemporary
2
landfill is that there is a limit to the life period
3
over which leachate will be produced.
If you are
4
looking at
a
leachate production from a closed
5
landfill that
is producing 500 or 5,000 or 10,000
6
gallons every week,
month,
year,
whatever,
on a
7
regular basis,
and the production starts to decline
8
and drops off to 300 gallons or less,
then an
9
interpretation that might be consistent with that
is
10
that the process of generating leachate has ended,
11
leachate is no longer being generated by the
12
landfill,
and
I,
as
an operator,
can now approach the
13
state and say this landfill is inert,
it’s done,
and
14
I should be allowed to reclaim my bonding.
It’s
15
safe.
It’s not producing leachate.
It can’t
create
16
a problem.
So our job,
you as regulator,
me as
17
operator,
is finished,
and we can walk away from it.
18
Q.
Again,
though, why would they misinterpret
19
that information when they have past history of that
20
same type of operation going on in a typical landfill
21
of this kind with the same types of material being
22
deposited over that same period of time?
C
90
1
A.
Not all
landfills are going to operate the
2
same.
The details of construction are not always the
3
same.
The
fact that leachate is not making it down
4
to the pump to be pumped out does have another
5
explanation.
That explanation is it can no longer
6
get into the leachate collection system.
And you
7
really can’t determine which of those two is the
8
controlling piece of information Onless you’re
9
looking at whether or not water levels
are rising in
10
the waste
in that landfill.
11
It’s
a very non-aggressive,
non—invasive
12
approach to verify the conclusion that leachate is
13
not being produced as opposed to the
fact that you
14
have a plugged leachate
collection system before the
15
operator is allowed to leave the facility behind.
16
MR. WASHINGTON:
Thank you.
17
HEARING OFFICER:
Any other members of the
18
Regional Planning Commission?
19
(NO RESPONSE.)
20
Members of the County Board,
do you have
21
any questions
of this witness?
22
(NO RESPONSE.)
C
91
1
Members of the general public?
2
Yes,
sir.
3
MR.
HARRISON:
Bruce Harrison.
I do have
a
4
couple questions.
5
CROSS-EXAMINATION
6
BY MR.
HARRISON:
7
Q.
In your earlier testimony you said that
18
8
months had passed without Waste Management
addressing
9
any of the problems
from the last application;
is
10
that true?
11
A.
I think
I said 13 months.
12
Q.
13 months?
13
Why do you think none of these things were
14
addressed?
15
A.
I would have to speculate.
I don’t know
16
why they weren’t.
It’s
—-
I don’t even want to
17
speculate as to why.
I
don’t know why they weren’t.
18
I just observed that they weren’t addressed.
19
Q.
Well,
the reason why
I asked this question
20
is because if they weren’t addressed,
you
know,
I’m
21
trying to figure out if any of these things were
22
necessary even because they weren’t addressed.
You
C
92
1
know,
that’s why
--
You know,
I don’t have the
2
information that you people do.
3
A.
Right.
There’s
—-
I mean,
there’s a host
4
of reasons hypothetically why they may not have been
5
addressed.
Ms. Underwood made clear with respect to
6
the sensitivity runs that she didn’t think it was
7
part of the process for siting to provide that
8
information.
I
do.
But they certainly
-—
The
9
decision not to include that presumably would have
10
included her opinion that sensitivity runs,
the
11
County doesn’t need to see the sensitivity runs to
12
come to a decision, that it’s part of the permitting
13
process,
it’s not part of the siting process.
I
14
adamantly disagree with that concept.
15
Ms. Underwood and
I have substantially
16
different views and opinions of what the
17
hydrogeology
—-
the details of the hydrogeology at
18
the site are.
Perhaps none of my concerns were
19
raised because she didn’t see the conflict and my
20
objections
as having the merit to discuss.
It may be
21
that Waste Management
said the permit was approved
22
last time,
why change
it,
let’s just put it back in
C
93
1
the way it was.
Maybe the cost of addressing
it was
2
beyond what their budget
--
I mean,
I simply don’t
3
know.
4
The concerns
I
raised maybe weren’t
5
addressed because they were dismissed.
We don’t
6
know.
They’re still out there.
As
a hydrogeologist
7
with my experience and background,
I think they are
8
still absolutely accurate descriptions of
9
inconsistencies and problems that need to be
10
addressed,
but
I don’t
know why they weren’t.
11
Q.
I have some concerns about test wells,
some
12
of the testimony that you were talking about test
13
wells.
14
Well,
these test wells that are out there,
15
you were testifying to some of the questions some of
16
this panel asked you.
I’m assuming a test well is
17
kind of like fishing?
There’s a lot of luck involved
18
when it comes to checking
a well?
Is that
a
fair lay
19
person’s analogy of the test well?
20
A.
Perhaps.
But
I would like to take the
21
analogy a little further in that
a good fisherman
22
doesn’t just operate randomly.
He usually knows the
C
94
1
species he’s looking for.
He usually knows the
2
places he’s likely to find that.
He
knows what the
3
bait
is
likely to do.
4
So you can put test wells in randomly,
5
monitoring wells
in randomly and hope you have them
6
in the right place to find something that’s leaking
7
or
you can use the
science of geology and
8
hydrogeology to optimize the opportunity to catch
9
that fish.
10
Q.
My other question,
is it your professional
11
opinion that based on the information that Waste
12
Management has provided,
the County does not have
13
adequate information to make a determination as to
14
the protection of the public health,
safety and
15
welfare?
16
A.
Yes,
that is my opinion.
17
MR.
HARRISON:
Thank you.
18
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr. Mueller,
are you going to
19
have some redirect?
20
MR.
MUELLER:
About three minutes’
worth.
21
HEARING OFFICER:
Okay.
We’ve been at this
for
22
more than an hour and
a half.
Let’s take a short
C
95
1
recess, during which time I’d like to talk to
2
Mr.
Flynn about the availability of his witnesses and
3
where we go from here.
4
MR.
FLYNN:
Let me make some phone calls
first.
5
HEARING OFFICER:
Okay.
Let’s take
a ten-minute
6
break and try to finish Mr..Norris before lunch.
7
(A brief recess was
had.)
8
HEARING OFFICER:
Let’s reconvene the public
9
hearing.
Just
a couple of announcements before we
10
continue.
We’ve had some scheduling problems with
11
witnesses,
so what we’re going to do we’re going to
12
finish Mr. Norris this morning,
his
redirect and
13
recross.
We’re going to then go through the exhibits
14
that Mr.
Moran submitted,
Petitioner’s Exhibit
3,
15
what’s part of
it,
what’s not part of it.
Mr.
Flynn
16
may want to supplement
that,
as
I understand
it.
17
MR.
FLYNN:
Correct.
18
HEARING OFFICER:
And then we’re going to
19
.
adjourn for the day.
There will be no afternoon or
20
evening session.
We’ll reconvene tomorrow morning at
21
8:30.
22
Mr.
Flynn has indicated he has two
C
96
1
witnesses at that time,
one on traffic,
one on real
2
estate.
Mr. Mueller has indicated he can’t be here
3
tomorrow morning but he’s agreed we can go ahead
4
without him.
That would be the conclusion
.of
5
everyone’s case in chief.
The applicant would then
6
have an opportunity
to introduce rebuttal testimony,
7
and that may consist of one,
two or possibly three
8
witnesses depending upon Mr.
Flynn’s witnesses.
It
9
may consist of Ms.
Underwood,
Mr.
Corcbran on
10
traffic,
Ms. McGarr on real estate.
11
Is that correct?
12
MR.
MORAN:
Yes.
13
HEARING OFFICER:
And so we would plan on going
14
most of the day tomorrow,
even tomorrow evening if we
15
have to.
I understand that Ms. McGarr may not be
16
available until Tuesday,
so if we don’t get it done
17
tomorrow, we may come back Tuesday for Ms.
McGarr’s
18
rebuttal and then for closing arguments.
19
But that determination hasn’t been made yet
20
because you don’t know what testimony Mr.
Flynn will
21
introduce;
is that right?
22
MR. MORAN:
That’s correct.
C
97
1
HEARING OFFICER:
Everybody clear on that?
Any
2
questions?
3
(NO RESPONSE.)
4
So after this morning’s session,
we’ll
5
adjourn until tomorrow morning at
8:30.
6
With that,
Mr.
Mueller,
redirect?
7
MR.
MUELLER:
Thank you.
8
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9
BY MR.
MUELLER:
10
Q.
Mr.
Norris,
you were asked if you have done
11
sensitivity, analyses in connection with preparing
a
12
permit application,
and your answer was that you had
13
not.
14
My question is have you done sensitivity
15
analyses of groundwater impact assessments
in other
16
contexts.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And what is
the significance and importance
19
of having sensitivity analyses performed and
20
completed?
21
A.
They’re an absolutely critical part to
22
understanding the results of the modeling for your
C
98
1
own benefit and providing a meaningful
ability for
2
someone to review and understand the effects of your
3
modeling that you’re presenting to them.
It can
4
point
out critical
flaws in your approach.
It can
5
help you not make mistakes that you might otherwise
6
make.
But
for the most part,
it provides confidence
7
for both yourself and for the parties
for whom you
8
are doing the modeling.
9
Q.
Mr.
Norris,
in response to one of
10
Mr.
Porter’s questions,
you indicated that you
11
understood anecdotally that the Town and Country
12
facility is proposed to be actually constructed in
13
the dolomite
and that that distinguishes
it from this
14
facility,
which is proposed to leave some in situ,
15
unconsolidated materials between the bottom of the
16
liner and the dolomite,
correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Now, based upon your review of the data in
19
this application,
do you have an opinion as to
20
whether the unconsolidated materials proposed to be
21
left under the
liner provide a meaningful
or
22
significant barrier between the bottom of that liner
C
99
1
and the top of the dolomite?
2
A.
No,
I don’t think they do for two reasons.
3
One,
the representation of those materials as being
4
significant factors of safety with respect to the
5
proposed facility are badly exaggerated in the
6
assessment within the application and the
7
hydrogeologic data from the site indicate that they
8
are at least several orders of magnitude more
9
conductive than is represented.
10
But
at least as critical, and perhaps
11
ultimately critical,
is that the thickness of those
12
sediments varies significantly in terms of the amount
13
of barrier that they have.
And it’s one of those
14
cases where an average number is not what’s critical.
15
What’s critical is the least protective flow path.
16
And there
are places where,
at most,
the
fine grain
17
sediments that were referred to as being
left in situ
18
are no more than a couple of feet thick,
if that.
So
19
the concept of these
in situ materials below the
20
liner and above the bedrock aquifer do not convey
21
that level of protection or distinction.
22
Q.
Mr.
Norris,
you were asked about
the number
C
100
1
of times you have reviewed applications on my behalf.
2
Eliminating duplications where there have been
3
multiple siting hearings such as here and in
4
Rochelle,
at how many different venues have you
5
consulted for me?
6
A.
I believe six.
7
Q.
And Mr.
Moran reminded you that your
8
conclusions were rejected by the Will County Board.
9
With regard to the six venues where you’ve consulted
10
for me
--
And obviously,
Will County was
not one of
11
them
——
what were the outcomes of those?
12
A.
Lake
in the
Hills Village,
the application
13
was denied.
LandComp in LaSalle County was approved.
14
The application of Tazwell was withdrawn.
The
15
application at Rochelle was denied.
This application
16
is pending.
And the application in Coles County was
17
denied.
So we’ve got three denials,
one approval and
18
one withdrawn and one pending.
19
Q.
And in each of those denials,
did the
20
county board,
or city council as the case may be,
21
find Criterion
2 had not been met?
22
A.
To be honest,
I don’t
know,
George.
C
101
1
Q.
Fair enough.
2
Lastly then,
with regard to the Will County
3
case where your conclusions
were,
as Mr. Moran
said,
4
rejected,
in fact,
after that process was
complete,
5
weren’t you invited on behalf of the
Sierra Club to
6
sit down privately with Waste Management’s technical
7
people and negotiate and work on changes in the
8
monitoring system?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And did you,
in
fact,
do that?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And did the results of those
conferences
13
manifest themselves
in the permit application which
14
was ultimately granted by the
IEPA?
15
A.
That’s my understanding.
16
MR.
MUELLER:
That’s all
I have.
17
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr. Moran?
18
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
19
BY MR.
MORAN:
20
Q.
Mr.
Norris, before today,
have you ever
21
opined that sensitivity analyses need to be performed
22
on a groundwater impact assessment done in connection
C
102
1
with a local siting application?
2
A.
No.
I don’t know that it’s ever been an
3
issue before the Kankakee one.
4
Q.
Well,
it became an issue here because
5
Mr. Mueller showed you the testimony of Mr.
Shue from
6
Town and Country;
isn’t that right?
7
A.
No.
It became an issue here when
I looked
8
at the groundwater impact assessment critically fbr
9
this application for the first time.
10
.
Q.
Well,
you didn’t have any comments
about
11
the sensitivity analysis during our first set of
12
hearings back in November of 2002,
did you?
13
A.
No.
I
had not had the time to investigate
14
the details of the groundwater impact assessment
15
modeling that was presented in the application.
It
16
,was there,
but
it
was not part of what
I
had the time
17
and the resources to review for that hearing.
18
Q.
And the Town and Country hearings to which
19
Mr. Shue’s testimony related occurred in June of
20
2003;
isn’t that correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And that would have been after the
first
0
103
1
set of hearings here,
correct?
2
A.
Correct.
3
Q.
Just so that I’m clear,
you indicated that
4
you looked at no other portion of that siting
5
application on behalf of Mr. Mueller;
is that
6
correct?
7
A.
That’s correct.
8
Q.
I think you’ve also indicated that you have
9
not within the last ten years
ever found a siting
10
application that was
submitted to a local siting body
11
sufficient
in terms of the amount of information it
12
provided that related to Criterion
2;
is that
13
correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
MR. MORAN:
Nothing further.
16
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Flynn?
17
MR.
FLYNN:
Just one or two questions.
18
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
19
BY MR.
FLYNN:
20
Q.
You were asked some questions a little bit
21
earlier
——
I believe it was Mr.
Porter that asked
22
them
--
in terms of where would you locate monitoring
C
104
1
wells on this
site.
Do you recall those questions?
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
And
I believe you indicated at this point
4
in time,
you can’t
give an exact location,
an
5
address,
so to speak?
6
A.
Correct.
-
7
Q.
You need additional information in order to
8
do that?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
A map,
so to speak?
A hydrogeologic map?
11
A.
I think the ultimate presentation of that
12
information would be expressed as a map certainly.
13
Q.
That information is just simply not
14
contained within this application?
15
A.
That’s correct.
16
MR.
FLYNN:
That’s all.
17
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Power?
18
MR.
POWER:
Nothing.
19
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Runyon?
20
MR.
RUNYON:
Nothing.
21
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Bruck?
22
MR.
BRUCE:
No.
0
105
1
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr..
Porter?
2
MR.
PORTER:
No,
thank you..
3
HEARING OFFICER:
Mr.
Smith?
4
MR.
SMITH:
No,
sir.
5
HEARING OFFICER:
Ms.
Harvey?
6
MS.
HARVEY:
No,
thank you.
7
HEARING OFFICER:
Members of the Regional
8
Planning Commission?
9
(NO RESPONSE.)
10
Members of the County Board,
any questions
11
of this witness?
12
(NO RESPONSE.)
13
And members of the public, any questions?
14
Yes?
15
MR.
HARRISON:
Bruce Harrison.
I just have one
16
more question.
17
RECROSS-EXANINATION
18
BY MR.
HARRISON:
19
Q.
Is it your professional opinion that this
20
application
is severely lacking in information to
21
make
a decision?
22
A.
Yes.
0
106
1
MR.
HARRISON:
Thank you.
2
MR.
MORAN:
Mr.
Hearing Officer,
if
I could
——
HEARING OFFICER:
Yes.
4
MR.
MORAN:
--I’ve just been informed by
5
Ms. Underwood that the Karlock Exhibit D contains
a
6
number of items in it that are really unexplained.
7
And perhaps
I should have asked this before of
8
Mr.
Norris, but
I would just ask leave to have him go
9
through and explain these numbers because,
frankly,
10
we don’t understand them.
11
HEARING OFFICER:
Any objection,
Mr. Mueller?
12
MR. MUELLER:
As long as it’s limited to
13
eliciting information regarding the meaning of the
14
.
exhibit,
I have no problem with it.
15
HEARING OFFICER:
And
I would allow you further
16
redirect if there
are other questions.
17
MR.
MUELLER:
That’s fine.
18
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
19
BY MR.
MORAN:
20
.
Q.
Mr.
Norris,
do you have Karlock Exhibit
D
21
in front of you?
22
A.
Yes.
C
107
1
Q.
Could you just take us through that
2
exhibit,
and beginning in the upper right-hand
corner
3
with your
Q
equals K times
small
I
times A,
and
4
indicate to us what each of these letters and each of
5
these designations represent and go through that
6
entire exhibit?
7
A.
Sure.
Q
equals K times
I times A is
a
8
standard expression of Darcy’s Law.
9
HEARING OFFICER:
Can everyone hear Mr. Norris?
10
Do you want to pull that microphone
a
11
little closer?
12
BY THE WITNESS:
13
A.
Q
is the total
flux through a system.
K is
14
the hydraulic conductivity of the materials in that
15
system.
1 is the gradient driving the
flow,
and A is
16
the area across which flow occurs.
17
.
In the top figure,
the figures under
18
monitored
zone,
I have the same equation with the
19
subscripts M indicating applying that equation to the
20
monitored zone,
the top
15 feet of bedrock.
So it’s
2l•
the same equation.
The
Q
through the monitored
22
perimeter is equal to the K of that zone times the
C
108
1
gradient within that zone times the area of the
2
perimeter.
3
That is expanded upon in the next line
4
where the
area of the perimeter is shown to be
15,
5
which represents the 15 feet times the sum of the
6
linear distances around the perimeter,
which would be
7
2,500
feet,
5,000
feet,
and 2,500
feet.
8
And the
final line there is merely
9
converting that area into the number of acres, which
10
would be multiplying those
--
adding those numbers
11
together and multiplying by 15 and dividing by
12
43,560,
converting that area of flow around the
l3
perimeter into the number of acres of
flow.
14
The basal flow
—-
15
Q.
Mr.
Norris,
can
I just interrupt you for a
16
moment?
17
A.
Sure.
18
Q.
What value did you use for the K value in
19
that series of equations?
20
A.
I have not put
a K value
in that
21
calculation.
22
Q.
So there was no specific K value used?
C
109
1
A.
No.
That’s
correct.
2
Q.
Would the
same be true for your gradient,
3
small
I?
4
A.
That’s correct.
5
Q.
You used no number for gradient?
6
A.
There’s no number in there at this point,
7
that’s correct.
Those are just
——
Those are
just
8
markers
in the equation.
9
The basal
flow,
which
I used the
10
subscript
V, which just is to indicate vertical.
So,
11
again,
we have QV is equal to KV times
IV,
the
12
vertical gradient,
times AV,
which would be the
area.
13
The area of the vertical flow is 2,500 times
5,000,
14
which
is equivalent to 276 acres
——
I’m sorry
——
15
287 acres.
16
Then
Q,
the next equation is
I have written
17
the vertical conductivity in terms of the
18
conductivity of the upper
zone in the application,
19
the average gradient
——
or not the average gradient.
20
I’m sorry.
The average hydraulic conductivity is,
I
21
believe,
13.9.
It’s on a previous Karlock
7 exhibit.
22
Okay.
Karlock Exhibit 7.22 actually has
C
110
1
the numbers from the appendices,
that the average
2
hydraulic conductivity of that upper
15 feet was
3
13.6 feet per day.
The average hydraulic
4
conductivity for the deeper tests within the aquifer
5
was 10.9 feet per day.
So the ratio between those
6
two is that the deeper hydraulic conductivity is
7
80 percent of the shallow,
so you can express the KV
8
as being
0.8
KM.
9
The next figure is an expression of the
10
vertical hydraulic gradient as
a function of the
11
hydraulic
--
lateral hydraulic gradient
in the upper
12
aquifer,
the upper
15 feet.
The upper
15 feet as
13
mapped and discussed in the application averages
14
around .005 to
.006 depending on what the direction
15
is.
The vertical
gradients range
from 0.1 to 0.0005
16
or
6.
17
I chose to disregard the highest hydraulic
18
conductivity and looked only at the lower hydraulic
19
conductivities,
which
are
10 percent of the lateral
20
gradient
—-
I’m sorry
——
the
--
I disregarded the
21
highest vertical
gradient, considered only the lower
22
vertical gradients,
which are about 10 percent of the
C
111
1
lateral gradient,
so
I have used in the equation
2
instead of
IV,
I
have expressed it as
10 percent of
3
the monitored zone gradient.
And the area of
4
vertical flow is 83.3 times the area of the perimeter
5
flow or the monitored
flow.
6
So those factors then can be combined and
7
you end up with the volume of vertical flow being
8
equal to 6.7 times the volume of the metered flow or
9
the monitored flow.
10
The
final, calculation is merely 6.7, which
11
is the relative portion of the vertical flow divided
12
by 7.7, which is the combined flow through the two
13
zones.
14
Q.
The last statement on Karlock Exhibit D
15
states that
87 percent of flow penetrates below
16
monitoring
wells?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
How did you determine or arrive at the
19
87 percent?
20
A.
As
I indicated,
that’s
6.7 divided by 7.7.
21
6.7 is the relative proportion of vertical
flow,
U
22
vertical
flux.
7.7 would be the combined portions of
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MR.
FLYNN:
No.
HEARING OFFICER:
MR. POWER:
No.
HEARING OFFICER:
MR.
RUNYON:
No.
HEARING OFFICER:
MR.
BRUCE:
No.
HEARING OFFICER:
MR.
PORTER:
No.
HEARING OFFICER:
MR.
SMITH:
No,
HEARING OFFICER:
MS.
HARVEY:
No
Mr.
Bruck?
Mr.
Porter?
Mr.
Smith?
sir.
Ms.
Harvey?
questions.
Any other members of the
Yes,
sir.
MR.
PAARLBERG:
Ralph Paarlberg from the RPC.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR.
PAARLBERG:
Q.
After
the
‘02 hearings,
there were
provisions put in the
agreement to not allow the
overlay of the new landfill on top of the old because
of concerns about the
subbase liner leakage,
vertical and horizontal.
6.7 divided by 7.7
is
87 percent.
MR.
MORAN:
Thank you,
Mr.
Norris.
HEARING OFFICER:
Any redirect,
Mr. Mueller?
MR.
MUELLER:
No,
thank you.
HEARING OFFICER:
Any other questions,
Mr.
Flynn?
Mr.
Power?
Mr.
Runyon?
U
21
HEARING OFFICER:
22
Planning Commission?
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
whatever.
10
Do you have an opinion on that?
It seems
11
to have crept back in?
12
A.
Yeah.
I did not look at that or involve
13
myself with that.
I think that is certainly
14
primarily and almost exclusively an engineering
15
issue.
It’s really outside my expertise.
16
MR.
PAARLBERG:
Thank you.
17
HEARING OFFICER:
Anyone else of this witness?
18
Mr.
Harrison?
19
MR.
HARRISON:
Bruce Harrison.
I do have a
20
question.
21
22
U
114
1
.
FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION
2
BY MR.
HARRISON:
3
Q.
From the testimony you’ve heard so
far and
4
the data that you have available to you,
in your
5
professional opinion,
do you believe Waste Management
6
is doing an adequate job of protecting the public,
7
health and welfare at the preserft landfill?
8
MR.
MUELLER:
Mr. McCarthy,
I’m going to object
9
to that question as beyond the
scope.
10
MR.
HARRISON:
I’m going to say something to the
11
objection that he raised.
In some of the testimony
12
that
I heard previously,
I believe that he testified
13
to some comments on the existing landfill,
and that
14
was what my question was directed
to.
15
HEARING OFFICER:
I think it is beyond the scope
16
of his testimony,
but
if he has an opinion,
he can
17
state
it.
18
BY THE WITNESS:
19
A.
The performance of the operator relative to
20
what the monitoring has
shown at the existing
21
facility is not a performance that would be
22
acceptable were,it under my direction,
were
I
C
115
1
involved technically.
The result has not,
I think,
2
at this point put anyone’s safety directly at risk.
3
In spite of the performance of the
4
operator,
the IEPA has insisted on some remedial
5
activities.
I
think those remedial activities could
6
have been initiated far sooner than they were,
but
I
7
guess
I’m sort of ambivalent.
I think the operator
8
certainly could have done a better job; but so far,
9
the approach of the operator,
as far as
I can tell,
10
hasn’t damaged anybody yet.
11
Q.
As a follow-up question,
I believe some
of
12
your testimony was about the quality of the water or
13
the sample that changed?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Can you explain that so
I can understand
16
it?
17
A.
Well,
there has been water quality
18
degradation
in the vicinity of the existing landfill.
19
That water quality degradation has led to issues of
20
noncompliance with permit requirements at various
.21
times in the past.
One of the
——
Part of the process
22
of that is an opportunity to demonstrate that the
C
116
1
degradation is not being caused by the landfill.
And
2
there can be
a lot of ways to bring yourself back
3
into compliance without making any changes in your
4
operations,
without making any changes to water
5
quality,
but getting the State to say okay,
it’s all
6
right that that’s happened,
it’s not your fault,
or
7
in particular,
it didn’t happen because of a leachate
8
release from the landfill.
9
My professional opinion is that the
10
operator has been able to convince the
State of some
11
things that
I don’t think accurately reflect
the
12
hydrogeology that’s going on there,
but that has
13
brought them back into compliance.
It hasn’t changed
14
the water quality.
And while the changes in water
15
quality that have occurred may not be the result of
16
the leachate
leak,
I do think that they are the
17
result of the construction and installation of the
l~
landfill and the
changes that that landfill has made
19
to the
site.
20
So while some of the water contamination,
21
some of the water degradation is the result of
22
material
from within the landfill escaping, others of
C
117
1
those changes are
legitimately not related to
2
leachate releases,
but they are related to the
3
operation.
And those
kinds of changes are not
4
something that either the State regulations address
5
or the operator then is worried about doing something
6
to correct.
7
Q.
Is
it your opinion as
a hydrogeologist that
B
this situation will deteriorate in the future?
9
A.
The
situation at the existing facility?
10
Q.
Yes.
11
A.
There,
apparently,
is going to be
12
remediation
of at least parts of
it,
the parts that
13
are directly attributable to materials
that have come
14
out of the landfill.
15
With respect to some of the
other changes,
16
I think the jury is still out as to whether some of
17
those changes have reached their new,
steady state
18
yet or whether they may continue to develop.
I don’t
19
know in that case.
20
MR.
HARRISON:
Thank you.
21
HEARING OFFICER:
Any other questions of this
-
22
witness?
C
118
1
(NO RESPONSE.)
2
Hearing none,
Mr.
Mueller,
have you offered
3
Karlock Exhibit 0 and E?
4
MR.
MUELLER:
Actually,
I don’t think I’ve
5
offered any of my exhibits,
so
I would offer them. all
6
now,
A,
B,
C,
0 and E.
And with respect to A and
C,
7
I still owe you the
ten copies, which I’ll have when
8
I return here tomorrow.
9
.
HEARING OFFICER:
Any objection to the’ admission
10
of those exhibits?
11
MR. MORAN:
No.
12
HEARING OFFICER:
Anyone else have any
13
objections?
14
(NO RESPONSE.)
15
They will be admitted.
16
I’d like to take
a few minutes.
This has
17
been raised by Mr.
Flynn,
and the applicant has
137
1
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SS.
2
COUNTY OF WILL
3
4
I,
Tiffany M. Pietrzyk,
a Certified
5
Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the
6
County of Will,
State of Illinois,
do hereby certify
7
that
I reported in shorthand the proceedings given at
8
the taking of said hearing and that the foregoing is
9
a true and correct transcript
of my shorthand notes
10
so taken as aforesaid and contaihed all the report of
11
proceedings given at said hearing.
12
13
Dated this 15th day of January,
A.D.
2004.
14
15
16
17
18
19
___________________________________
TIFFANY M.
PIETRZYK, CSR RPR
20
CSR No.
084—004371
21
22
